Wow. So nobody disagreesThe prosecutor.
The defense too if they don't bring it up at trial.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wow. So nobody disagreesThe prosecutor.
The defense too if they don't bring it up at trial.
Math is not your strong point I suppose.Wow. So nobody disagrees
I continue to wait for you to provide us with one person....you haven'tMath is not your strong point I suppose.
I provided you two.I continue to wait for you to provide us with one person....you haven't
hahahah, why do you keep lying?I provided you two.
I'm not.hahahah, why do you keep lying?
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said Friday that the judge in former President Donald Trump’s trial crossed “the line” with a suggestion to prosecutors.
New York Judge Juan Merchan suggested that Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg testify after prosecutors from the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sought to introduce Weisselberg’s severance package into evidence, according to Politico. Turley called the suggestion “very unusual” when asked about the development by Fox News host Martha MacCallum.
“It reminds me of a judge when I started out as a lawyer who was notorious because he would say, ‘Is the defense ready to present its case,’ and turn to the prosecutors and say ‘Are we ready to present our case?’ This is a little bit crossing the line. You’re not supposed to be making this a mutual effort,” Turley said.
Wessielburg's name keeps coming up in this trial, but neither side has asked him to testify.
Why? It’s not their job to clear it up, it’s the states job to prove it. You’d think they’d call him to show trump knewYa, you would think that the defense would have been all over having Wessielburg on the witness list to clear up that Trump knew nothing.
Interesting that the defense didn't call him as a witness.
WW
Why? It’s not their job to clear it up, it’s the states job to prove it. You’d think they’d call him to show trump knew
Why? It’s not their job to clear it up, it’s the states job to prove it. You’d think they’d call him to show trump knew
This is a guy who went to jail for lying on Trump's behalf. No reason for the Prosecution to call him.
I'm more curious why the defense didn't.
Um who weren’t to jail for lying on trumps behalf?This is a guy who went to jail for lying on Trump's behalf. No reason for the Prosecution to call him.
I'm more curious why the defense didn't.
Why? The defense has nothing to prove. The reality is the state has no case, so why waste anyones time with more witnessIt's their job to defend their client, meaning a responsible defense attorney is going to put a witness stand that would exonerate their client.
Unless of course they know that Weisselberg wouldn't exonerate their client, that the testimony would actually just be another nail in the case driving toward a conviction.
WW
Um who weren’t to jail for lying on trumps behalf?
Why would the defense? They have nothing to prove
Why? The defense has nothing to prove.
The reality is the state has no case, so why waste anyones time with more witness
They don't have to put anyone up....but they did put up Cohen's lawyer who testified that Cohen repeatedly stated Trump knew nothing.Um, yeah, guy, the Defense didn't put up anyone but one clown who imploded on the witness stand.